Skip to main content

tv   [untitled]    February 15, 2013 5:00pm-5:30pm PST

5:00 pm
to go back and make sure it's consistent for the seismic concerns. this is address that and at appeal document they say "we should put them under one permit" which i interpret as put the cabosh on and deny the project. that's the concern i think for the requesters, but without my speculation at issue the point i address in the brief these permits are all linked and any subsequent permit comes out linked to that seismic upgrade and that requires them to review the plans. >> the appellant's brief mentioned mov's. are there nov's? >> i don't think there are at this time. the city can speak to that. all of the concerns have been addressed. there were some issued between the transition of the previous
5:01 pm
contractor and they're in litigation and had real troubles with and the transition to the new builders, so we have been working with the city. they have been out there numerous times. they reviewed everything and had contact and submitted our report from the seismic inspections so as i understand there's nothing stopping the work other than the appeals at this time. >> okay. the actual nov's were not provided in any of the briefs. are they applicable to the first three permits? >> i don't believe so. i know one of them -- i know the previous counsel was harping on was for electric and plumbing work and nothing to do with the permits at issue. >> okay. >> seeing no other questions i will set aside and let the representation from the city move forward.
5:02 pm
>> mr. sanchez. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. first i apologize to the board that we're bringing to you something that is so confusing that has gotten to a point it can be so confusing. i had requested the approved plans from the permit holder in december. i did not receive them until monday. i had sent an email in december. i received a response back saying they were working with the neighbors and they would give an update. we never received it. i clearly should have followed up. i take responsibility for that and unfortunately i coming into this week and trying to understand the issues with the permits and there are issues with these permits and so i think i had more time to review this i would have been suspending the permits before they got to this point because there are issues with
5:03 pm
the permits, not the entirety of the work, not every bit of work on the permits has a problem, but there are parts of each permit that are problematic. the excavation that was done for the garage and one of the problems here this is an inertive process. you have the first permit and for the sheet rock and no plans and not reviewed by the planning department. i don't see issues with that. then we get into the first permit from january of last year, and that has i think a little bit of excavation at the -- what's called the lower level on the plans, but that also i believe calls for doing a new roof, a built up roof on a portion of the building which had no roof. it was in closing that was not permitted. it was would have required a variance
5:04 pm
and the structure and walls and odd looks structure. from the outside it looked like part of the building and had windows and i don't know if was used for a hot tub or what have you, but the permit came in and kind of very neatly added a roof on the structure and closing it and incorporating it into the building envelope. that wouldn't have been allowed under the planning code. one problem there are no existing or proposed plans. what we have here are proposed plans that have a little bit of dash lines underneath of what was there and it wasn't very clear. typically we will get one existing version, one proposed version. we can clearly compare the two so that is one of the problems here with this permit so that's the january permit that is problematic with that, and they did resolve it later on with one of the permits on appeal later on, but that is a problem with
5:05 pm
this permit. the next permit which was the march permit they added a garage in there. there are a couple of problems with this. first the excavation required environmental review and i don't see evidence of that and i apologize i had a brief conversation with the architect and i went over some of the issues and this one i didn't have time to go over it. i didn't have it in my head when speaking to him but when you excavate more than 8 feet you need to do environmental review so in this case there is no evidence of that being done. also the plans show a five car garage. this is a single family in this district and allowed maximum of three parking spaces. i went by the site this morning and i don't think -- you would really fit five cars in there. i think it's reasonably a three car garage and amending the plans to show that, but that is
5:06 pm
problematic and the environmental review is problematic with that march permit so getting into some of the issues there is also the roof deck that i think the last permit, and there was other work on that permit including replacing windows and preservation staff reviewed the changes and i can't approve over the counter but limited it to the roof deck expansion. one of the problems with the roof deck there is no existing plan shows an existing fire escape. the plans show a new fire escape, but the permit says replace existing fire escape or talks about an existing one so it's unclear there was one. the architect said there was an existing fire scape. i think we need more information and says new fire scape because of the expanded roof deck and that
5:07 pm
would require a variance for the yard. other things that was not approved. part of the scope that was not approved was a widening of the garage at the front and that does not approved but i noticed that the footing was done and i can show that on the overside so we see the new footing not pourd and that would widen it. that would require neighborhood notice. it's hard to tell from the plans but the expansion of the roof deck to the front. it looks like that portion is above the height limit and trigger a 10 notice for that and it seems
5:08 pm
like it was done in an inertive fashion. there was first the lower level gets bigger and on the third permit and the garage gets really big and it's getting wider and the next permit -- we need one consolidated permit that has all the work that staff can review and determine the appropriate permits for it, and again i apologize i didn't have this review completed at an earlier time and issue suspension letters. i think there is work that could continue and certainly on the main living levels. they are reconfiguring the floors, not expanding the building envelope. those don't seem problematic and what i propose and the board's desire how to proceed on the jurisdictional question but in any event i would issue a
5:09 pm
suspension for the permits for the problematic portions to ensure work there does not continue while we can -- allow us time to consider a consolidated permit that addresses all of these concerns so i know it's very complicated and confusing. i apologize again. i am available for any questions. thank you. >> mr. sanchez, the approved plans that you received represent which permits? >> i've got all of the approved permits -- all of the permits that have plans so i think i've got four -- i have four here, yeah. >> do you have four different sets? >> yeah. so the first permit on the request there are no plans so no plans for that. the second on the request which was january of last year submitted january of last year that has plans. i have that. i've got
5:10 pm
the permit submitted in march which is the third permit on the jurisdiction request for the garage and two permits on appeal and suspended and that's the roof deck and the permit to remove the non permitted addition at the rear which is on the end of your calendar. >> do you concur with the permit holder's representative that the permits set issued for the last two permits represent the entire project? >> no. no. not at all. no, definitely not. the last permit was a very -- let's see. yeah, the last permit which was november 20 is just to remove the walls and that has no other information on the permit. the one before that has a lot of
5:11 pm
work that we could not approve and just has a little line and therefore showing the scope which was the roof deck, so no, i wouldn't say that the final two permits have a full approved scope of work for the project. >> okay. >> i have a question for you mr. sanchez. how often do i get plans like this without existing plans or as builts? >> this is very rare. i can't think of a time i am surprised staff didn't request to have clear conditions. >> so generally as is drawing or existing drawing required for this scope of work? >> yes, i would say so. it makes it easier. i don't know why it was not done in this case. i don't know if i can give a percentage to it but
5:12 pm
about 95% would and it's hard to see the difference. >> okay. thank you. >> thank you. >> mr. dufty. >> commissioners, 63 presidio i am familiar with it. i started getting callos it in the middle of last year from the neighbor mr. greenwald, mostly phone calls and more to do probably with tidiness, noise. he was a little concerned about his foundation, stuff like that, so i have been out there about four times. my recent visit i met with the architect to get at the bottom of the complete scope of work and when there are five permits issued on a job -- i mean there is nothing against it. you it do it but if you have a new building you have one big set of plans or pretty much
5:13 pm
start off, but with these big remodels that we're seeing a lot of in san francisco it's the common practice now to piecemeal the permits maybe to get the permits through because if you submit everything at once maybe it will take a long time to get through planing and building and dpw could take a long time if you show the complete scope of work. a lot of people do it the other way and one to get going and subsequently do revisions. what happens in that process we don't get a good picture and i think that is the case here, and as a matter of fact following the site visit out there i had prepared a correction notice for the senior building inspectors as well so it's one of my areas and my correction notice was to ask them to file a consolidated group of plans to show the
5:14 pm
scope of work and the building sections so everybody can know and as well as on the front of the plans a full scope of work. that would be ideal for us, and however walking through the building and the work that's been done so far we have inspected all of the work at the garage area. it's been done properly. the concrete seems fine and we gave them a set of plans and they built to that in the four sets of plans. i didn't see damage to the neighboring foundation and there are special inspections on that project so the concrete and rebar inspections and any welding that was done and the quality of the work is there. they're doing a lot of structural work on the inside much the building. they're beefing up walls and installing hardware and seismic stuff so
5:15 pm
that is all being done properly. apart from -- there are no violations apart from the notice of violation which we always post for the suspended permit for the appeal. we always standardly do that. there is another notice of violation from plumbing and i believe that happened because there was a general contractor on the job originally, carusso construction, and you heard the new one took it over. someone filed a complaint -- mr. williams actually and the inspector went out there and there is no current permit so means you have no pump scption wrote him up for that and they subsequently got. there are complaints on the active file because we keep them on there but there are no notices of violation. that's it for me. i can answer any questions. >> one of the comments written with respect to the complaint
5:16 pm
sheet indicates that similarly what you indicated that the amount of construction conforms in terms of scope of work to the permit sets? >> yeah. when i went there i had a pretty good look at everything and everything i could see and hour and a half looks like everything was conforming. in the brief i read and there was work and they got a head's up and i didn't see it. there was no addition to the back of the building but everything seemed in the scope of the permits given there are five permits so you're going to cover a lot of work with that. >> okay. when is the last time you visited? >> less than two weeks ago. >> the photos from some of the more specialty consultants, geo technical and inspection people
5:17 pm
pretty deep shoring. is all that work done? >> all of the work at the garage i would probably say it's 90% done. i believe they got okay to pour on the slab on january 30 so when you do that all the walls are done when i walked through the garage the walls have all before pored so the excavation is done and the concrete walls are in place and probably cleaning up lose ends. there is an area above the garage that got expanded. it's a strange area and like a steady room and it's being framed out and below the main floor. it's a pretty big house. >> thank you. i'm sorry. >> i never seen mr. sanchez
5:18 pm
raise his hand. >> thank you. scott sanchez planning department. i just want to stand corrected. there are xiflting plans and the first set of plans they are labeled and towards the efndz the plan set. typically we see it on the same page so you see existing -- there are existing four plans. i didn't see any existing elevations, just the existing floor plans so sorry i just wanted to clarify that. >> i have a question mr. sanchez, so when you're looking at the plans you're talking about an area where a roof was added. how is that indicated on the as builts? >> it's shown as a room where the portion -- i can pull the plans. if you're asking about
5:19 pm
the room at the back that had the roof added to it. let's see if it will fit on the overhead. so it's the room behind the studdie. this had no roof on it and on the plansz they said new built up roof here but there was no other plans or elevations and no indication they're closing this space. >> and by putting a roof on that would that trigger neighbor notification? >> it would require a variance because it's in the rear yard. the required rear yard line is here so this would be in the required rear yard and would trigger a variance. >> okay. thank you very much.
5:20 pm
>> and just to be clear on the last permit which is on appeal to the board those walls have been removed and the work has been done -- >> i'm sorry. it's been removed at this point? >> yes. the walls here have been removed. >>i think the photos show that there was no roof originally. >> correct. >> it was like a 8-foot high screen wall and it was ind kainded in the brief it was removed already. >> okay. shall we ask for public comment? is there any public comment on this item? okay. commissioners unless you have any other questions the matter is submitted. >> i have a further question
5:21 pm
for the permit holder's representative. you've heard from at least one city agency that they're intending to take some further actions on this particular project. in terms of where you may want to go with that in terms of your hearing before this board, you may want to consider a continuous. >> of this one or the one coming up? >> both. otherwise if there is
5:22 pm
further action from planning that could create significant delay to your project if it's not worked out. >> so you're asking me if i want to stipulate to continue right now? i have to speak -- >> i am asking you to think about it. >> i am happy to think about it. anything else? >> i have one question counselor. so was there a particular reason why the plans were given to planning so late after they requested it several times? >> to be perfectly honest with you the communications weren't coming to me. i had no idea mr. sanchez wanted the plans. if anybody let me know i would have addressed that so no, i can't tell you. >> so who would be responsible for getting the plans to the planning or to the city agency? >> i don't know. i only learned that he requested them previously very recently and
5:23 pm
that wasn't a direct communication with me, so i apologize to mr. sanchez if he wasn't able to get the plans sooner. >> okay. >> but i love to reign it back in and saitd wait a second. first they have to show some reason to trigger the jurisdictional request before we address the merits of the appeal. >> understood. are you done commissioners? all right. i do have one additional point to raise. you know i understand that the permit holder has rights also, and therefore my questions related to the building department was whether there were issues with the heavy construction and engineering that is occurring on excavation and shoring. mofts of the work, the heavy lifting has been done . the question is whether a delay creates harm to your
5:24 pm
client, or the question also relates to what can be continued because i don't think everything here is of concern to the appellants. >> well, yes to speak to that, yes delay will cause financial harm to the permit holder because they can't apply for new permits either while the appeal is pendzing so if that is continued they're running out of things to do. all of the work we can do is getting accomplished so at this point it's a matter of causing financial harm to the permit holder to tie his hands when frankly we still -- there has been some testimony about being rare to have the permit set up this way, but no testimony about wrong doing or intentional attempts to circumvent and mr. dufty said he was called
5:25 pm
out there for complaints -- >> we heard the report. >> we submitted the report from them and this is a safe project. they're going beyond for the safety of them and the neighbors. >> i understand that. your list of future permits are minor items and curb cuts and minor items until you won't finish until the end of the project anyway. >> right. >> one last question. i guess they were at the project site today and the garage door had been wided. >> if mr. sanchez checks his email there say picture that has been removed. nobody knows why it was there. we speculate maybe the previous builder made a mistake. it's not being widened. the garage is finished. they took a sledge
5:26 pm
hammer as soon as it was pointed out. thank you for your time. >> thank you. >> it appears that one issue is related to the designation of the garage. more quantitative. when i looked at the finish drawing for what it represents doesn't appear the garage can fit five cars. that is one issue. you had another issue with the new windows and the appropriate -- either environmental or historical resource analysis that maybe required. do you still have an
5:27 pm
issue with the upper level, the rear, the new roof that you mentioned? >> no. yeah to be clear they have done good things too, and i did get the email. i guess at 623 that confirmed that had been removed, but the portion at the rear, the screening walls that were about 8 feet tall, that has been removed. they had the permit to roof that which they shouldn't have gotten but they corrected that and removed those walls so that is good. i need to get more clarification on the fire escape issue. the plans are unclear about it being existing or not and i need to confirm that with the permit holder. if there was an existing fire escape and required form of egress and seems like it is and they could
5:28 pm
replace it and that wouldn't be a problem . the other concern was the widening of the graf ranch and they seemed to. >> >> address and it's minor with the number of cars to get that corrected but the environmental review wasn't properly done for the excavation because it was beyond 8 feet so that needs to be addressed, so certainly this could be addressed in another permit and they changed the windows and that wasn't approved by the preservation staff and it's my understanding they're doing it in kind and not change the shape and that is acceptable but we need to check the plans with that. >> hard to check the film now. it's gone. >> that is a problem, yes. so thank you. >> how long would it take your staff to deal with these issues with them?
5:29 pm
>> the permit work -- we confirm there is no expansion on the building and no variance required we need to see plans and i would rely on the preservation specialists to make a determination whether that could be approved over the counter or require additional environmental review. if it's over the counter this isn't much of an issue. i am more concerned about the excavation done. now granted it's been done. the issue is and for our check list if it's more than 2 feet in a archaeological sensitive area it needs review and if it's more than 8 feet of that and needs environmental review. it needs to receive that. that is a couple of weeks to do environmental review for that. again it's 90% done at this point. >> i'm sorry.
left
right